Search results

Except the fireball always lands right where you want it to. Not long, short, left or right in any degree of mattering, and always in the perfect shape/area.

Why do you have to only imagine your wizard never missing while the fighter does? IOW, why does the Wizard unerringly weave external powers of the cosmos to always manifest exactly where he wants them while teh Fighter wielding the same, tactile sword in his hand all along will miss?

Except we're talking about related game resolution mechanics. It's like in most board games it's simply a variation of aquire some commodities, build some stuff regardless if it's Alhambra, Galaxy Trucker, Trailer Park Wars, Lords of Waterdeep, Smallworld, Agricola, whatever. Everything else is...

There never has been. It's Declare an Action, Roll some dice for resolution. General Rule #1 for D&D: People like rolling dice. Attacker always rolling is great, it lets the player roll more and makes the DM have to roll less so he/she/I can look at other things.

For example: I'm just fine with alignment being a baseline/default presentation in the game personally. However, when it becomes mechanically ingrained in binary (character-wise) fashions is where I start to draw lines. Paladins: LG-only = Bad Lathander: LG Diety, Sun Domain, followers...

Only when it's chosen to be. The issue is mechanically ingraining alignment, not its existence. These paragraphs are a direct contradiction, at least as far as early editions go. If you wanted to play a front-line beatstick/tank, Paladin was a superior mechanical choice. The heavy restrictions...

Because some people enjoy it. If you don't, that's cool and good that you understand that about yourself. Humans aren't inherently monogamous but large societies work better when the majority are socially conditioned to be.

Don't knock it 'til you've tried it. As long as you're communicating, consenting adults, go to town. That means drawing the line when agreeing to a mutually monogamous relationship, but if that's not your bag, so be it.

You need to get out more. America is horribly repressed, sexually. Violence on the other hand..... Methinks you're not understanding the nature of repression.

Again, that's a very wild leap of (il)logic. Reading much of anything in to a single tweet is ridiculous. You also said "now that it's been removed", which it hasn't.

Ummm, it hasn't been removed, but don't let facts get in the way of fanatical beliefs. A tweet that says, and I quote "I'm personally not crazy about it - causes a lot of questions about how stuff interacts at the table." does not mean it's removed. Personally, I'd rather it was replaced...

Movies are a bit tougher. 1. King Arthur 2. The 13th Warrior 3. The Seven Samurai 4. Star Wars 5. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

This.

Yea and no though. The characters you post about aren't cheesed out but also aren't ineffective. Finding the most flavorful choice that also is effective is where I think most people would fall. Choice A: Mechanically best, but boring as dirt. Choice B: Mechanically good and flavorful...

Put away your passive-aggressive BS. I in no way said people wanting to play that way were stupid and you know it. It's really poor judgement to require everyone to play that way when many don't. So the other orders are going to give him a "free pass" just because he's a Paladin? Why wouldn't...

Which is, quite frankly, stupid to shoehorn in to the game. Your "example" means all Paladins must be the same alignment, belong to hierarchal organizations and lack rivalries. Yeah, that's too simplistic and restrictive for many. The game has grown beyond that. 1. What about the Paladin...

John's Roast Pork and Pat's King of Steaks are the two I've been recommended, both southside.

Actually, Dwarves would be LN. Some people like the strict lines that the alignment axis makes, some people use them as a foundation, some use them as a very loose guide, some prefer more nuanced methods and some only use them for non-PCs. This is why Alignment is fine to be listed but not...

The bandits stole, the villagers harbored criminals and received stolen goods, the sheriff tortured. They're all guilty, the party should just kill 'em all, right?

The issue is that a character, LG for example, would have to compromise his/her alignment regardless of which solution was pursued. It doesn't have to be. If playing with stringent/simpler alignment views, goblins are evil, just like it says in the Monster Manual. Personally, I like the 'there...